Niels, military service is and has always been a privilege, not a right.

 

You are absolutely correct that it has been a privilege (except during periods of draft, when it was a compulsory activity).

 

However, even things that are privileges cannot be simply curtailed for certain types of people without reasonable justification:

Example: Driving is a privilege - yet, the DMV cannot simply deny licenses to African Americans who meet all stated and neutral criteria

 

Ehh, kind of. Driving on public roads is a privilege. If you don't leave your own property, there is no Government permission card required. I grew up on a farm that was 3/4 of a section (if you don't know, a section is a square mile). Started driving farm machinery and pickup trucks at about 11 years of age. Never on the public roads.

 

Now, you are absolutely correct that the Government cannot discriminate. Since the Government uses our tax money to create the roads, and there is a specifically defined process to obtain permission to drive on it, you are correct.

 

However, a personal business has the right to refuse service to anyone they don't want to. If a person running a business decides they no longer want to provide services to a specific group of people (take your pick how they are defined), then they have that right. They also have to deal with the repercussions of their choices of who to do business with.

 

So, there was a story a while back about a cake business that decided they didn't want to make a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding, and the whole internet got up in arms about it, leaving fake bad reviews online, I think they got hacked, and I think there were even death threats (been way too long, and I'm not searching for that on my work computer). That was the businesses choice. Now, once that was made clear, it was on every other couple or business to determine if that was in line with their values, and act accordingly. I don't think what was done to the business was right, however, had every couple that decided that wasn't in line with their views canceled cake orders, the company would have thought it over again.

 

Here's another example. Take the second amendment, and concealed carry (legal in my state). By law, there are certain places carved out where I am not allowed to carry, even if I'm licensed (bars, churches (without permission), court rooms, etc). Unless it is specifically defined in that law, the Government is not supposed to further restrict my rights. Now, business owners, being private companies, can make the choice to put up a sign telling me I'm not welcome with my legally concealed weapon. Fine, I'm left with a choice (agree with them and do business there, or go somewhere else to do business). I almost always choose to do my business elsewhere. The first time I see the sign at a business, I will provide a card to the on duty store manager or business owner that explains why I'm taking my business elsewhere.

 

 

Niels, military service is and has always been a privilege, not a right.

 

You are absolutely correct that it has been a privilege (except during periods of draft, when it was a compulsory activity).

 

However, even things that are privileges cannot be simply curtailed for certain types of people without reasonable justification:

Example: Driving is a privilege - yet, the DMV cannot simply deny licenses to African Americans who meet all stated and neutral criteria

 

Ehh, kind of. Driving on public roads is a privilege. If you don't leave your own property, there is no Government permission card required. I grew up on a farm that was 3/4 of a section (if you don't know, a section is a square mile). Started driving farm machinery and pickup trucks at about 11 years of age. Never on the public roads.

 

Now, you are absolutely correct that the Government cannot discriminate. Since the Government uses our tax money to create the roads, and there is a specifically defined process to obtain permission to drive on it, you are correct.

 

However, a personal business has the right to refuse service to anyone they don't want to. If a person running a business decides they no longer want to provide services to a specific group of people (take your pick how they are defined), then they have that right. They also have to deal with the repercussions of their choices of who to do business with.

 

 

Sure, I'll accept the clarification of non-discrimination regarding the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  And yes, very familiar with the concept of a section - my uncle has one-and-a-half in Montana, and I too learned to drive (cars, tractors, and a combine harvester) on it prior to getting a road license.

 

Here's another example (mostly for the perusal of MWilson):

Perhaps you recall the IRS targeting controversy, when the IRS supposedly discriminated against certain groups' applications for tax exempt status due to their political beliefs?

Of course, establishing a tax exempt organization is not a right, but a privilege.  Yet, here were all these people upset that they were discriminated against by the government in pursuit of that privilege.

It's almost as if they admitted that the government shouldn't have the right to do that.  And if it shouldn't there, and it shouldn't with regards to driver's licenses as we discussed, it also shouldn't have with regards to non-closeted gays and the privilege to serve in their country's armed forces.

 

On your final point regarding the right of business owners to not serve a specific group of people, sure, they can do that.

The two examples you provided resulted in losses in the court of public opinion.*

For certain other choices though (race, religion, other protected categories) there may also be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and subjection to large fines (ex: $54M fine of Denny's in 1994).  Here, both court of law & court of public opinion losses would be the result.

 

* - I will also state emphatically that any hacking or death threats were unacceptable.  They're pretty much unacceptable regardless of the rationale employed or the person(s) targeted.

 

a) Libertarians want all even if it hurts others, hence full capitalism is it highest form (I wantz all teh monahz!!!), aka narcissists (enough S's? )

 

If you're taking so much time typing something out, you might want to try making sense. There must be something lost in translation. I try very hard to understand your point, and how it relates to the issues, but sometimes it's too frustrating. Too much of what you say is gibberish to me.

 

Libertarians have never said a thing about anything being "even"... and the Capitalists that earn that money, own that money... not you. Such is talking American politics with Europeans... things are not anywhere near the same here, as they are there.

 

the "even" is not about "equal", change it to "regardless" then if you so desire.

for "monahz", its "money", but perhaps you got that one

the narcissism is me being funny on the Sadist notion

 

And you conflate socialism with "taking money from side A to side B", which it isn't. Socialism's money is Nations A money used to uplift side B which has sadly fallen behind side A for various reasons. Free-rides are as much a fathom as they are in the US.

 

Indeed not the same, hence we need a framework in which we can relate with the same idea behind the words used.

This is some excellent discussion going on.

This is some excellent discussion going on.

Not so much huh? The entire thing has devolved into a contest to keep Trump from the nomination. The Donald will sweep the northeast starting with New York on the 19th. They are no longer just firing inside their own tent... they are throwing dynamite. Us that have already voted can only sit back and watch what happens.

just keep the fire and pitchforks in the history museums

 

for certain groups of people

When will you guys allow all American citizens to be treated equally? As long as you keep carving out special treatment for "certain groups of people", there will always be victims of your policies. The law is blind... this is why Lady Justice holds the scale and wears a blindfold. Progressives still believe they can make human emotions illegal.

 

This is why I vote Libertarian. The truest form of freedom you'll find in American politics. The dems and GOP are all insane and if this election cycle doesn't prove that for you, idk what will. And no, Bernie Sanders is a horrible candidate as well.

 

 

This is why I vote Libertarian. The truest form of freedom you'll find in American politics. The dems and GOP are all insane and if this election cycle doesn't prove that for you, idk what will. And no, Bernie Sanders is a horrible candidate as well.

I agree. If only enough of us would commit to the Libertarians to be competitive, I would be there as well. 

 

This is why I vote Libertarian. The truest form of freedom you'll find in American politics. The dems and GOP are all insane and if this election cycle doesn't prove that for you, idk what will. And no, Bernie Sanders is a horrible candidate as well.

I agree. If only enough of us would commit to the Libertarians to be competitive, I would be there as well. 

 

Well, by you not being there and supporting it you're contributing to that group of uncommitted. So many people use that as an excuse and if they actually voted Libertarian like they say they want to, we probably could have a candidate in the big debates. This is the kind of thinking that prevents us from real change IMO. Sorry, I don't mean to sound hostile or anything. I'm just passionate about it and I'm also very concerned about the country and the direction we're going. It's definitely not sustainable at the rate we're raising the debt ceiling and printing money. Now this $15 federal min wage is going to destroy more peoples jobs and increase the prices of everything, lowering the value of the dollar.

 

If you really consider yourself a Libertarian, please please vote for them and encourage others! I'm actually working on developing a media website with a Libertarian outlook. Covering current events, politics, and promoting by designing graphics and other things to support the movement. 

 

Also, note my avatar. Haha

 

 

Well, by you not being there and supporting it you're contributing to that group of uncommitted. So many people use that as an excuse and if they actually voted Libertarian like they say they want to, we probably could have a candidate in the big debates. This is the kind of thinking that prevents us from real change IMO. Sorry, I don't mean to sound hostile or anything. I'm just passionate about it and I'm also very concerned about the country and the direction we're going. It's definitely not sustainable at the rate we're raising the debt ceiling and printing money. Now this $15 federal min wage is going to destroy more peoples jobs and increase the prices of everything, lowering the value of the dollar.   If you really consider yourself a Libertarian, please please vote for them and encourage others! I'm actually working on developing a media website with a Libertarian outlook. Covering current events, politics, and promoting by designing graphics and other things to support the movement.    Also, note my avatar. Haha

 

It's a noble effort my friend, but you can't change things if you don't win elections. The best course of action would be a populist candidate, running as a Republican, with a Libertarian platform... change the party... much like the Progressives did with the Democrats. Rand Paul has the right idea... but he needed Donald Trump's movement. I can't vote for a loser on principle. I have to vote for the one that has a chance of winning, that comes closest to my positions. Right now it's Ted Cruz... but I'll vote Trump over the criminal, or the Socialist... any day.

Gotta love Lys, a man of principle. Though we may not agree on everything, always a good man to have as a friend.

Gotta love Lys, a man of principle. Though we may not agree on everything, always a good man to have as a friend.

Gotta love Dandy, a man of many talents... and I've seen enough Japanese Hentai to know where this is going.

 

Well, by you not being there and supporting it you're contributing to that group of uncommitted. So many people use that as an excuse and if they actually voted Libertarian like they say they want to, we probably could have a candidate in the big debates. This is the kind of thinking that prevents us from real change IMO. Sorry, I don't mean to sound hostile or anything. I'm just passionate about it and I'm also very concerned about the country and the direction we're going. It's definitely not sustainable at the rate we're raising the debt ceiling and printing money. Now this $15 federal min wage is going to destroy more peoples jobs and increase the prices of everything, lowering the value of the dollar.   If you really consider yourself a Libertarian, please please vote for them and encourage others! I'm actually working on developing a media website with a Libertarian outlook. Covering current events, politics, and promoting by designing graphics and other things to support the movement.    Also, note my avatar. Haha

 

It's a noble effort my friend, but you can't change things if you don't win elections. The best course of action would be a populist candidate, running as a Republican, with a Libertarian platform... change the party... much like the Progressives did with the Democrats. Rand Paul has the right idea... but he needed Donald Trump's movement. I can't vote for a loser on principle. I have to vote for the one that has a chance of winning, that comes closest to my positions. Right now it's Ted Cruz... but I'll vote Trump over the criminal, or the Socialist... any day.

 

Rand Paul was my original choice. But, he's nothing like his father. But, really, why not vote Libertarian this election. If your options are Clinton or Trump you have no reason not to. Idk, personally I'd never ever vote for either of them, they're two sides to the same coin.

 

Ted Cruz always struck me as a phony and the guy is a lunatic. He tried banning dildos in Texas. If you're focused on banning dildos, you probably need to re-evaluate why you were elected and his standing for personal freedom fails to show in his record. It's a depressing time in American politics. It's amazing that some of these people have this power. Blows my mind friend.

 

The only mainstream candidate I do like is Bernie Sanders. Only because I feel he is genuine and really believes in what he is doing. However, he is on the complete opposite side of the spectrum as me and for that reason I can't vote for him. I do like Trump too. But, for the wrong reasons lol. I find him very entertaining and his way of speaking always gets me, that I can tell you.

Trump is the only one that has the sack, and will, to change things.

 

If Cruz is elected... he'll cancel all of Obama's executive orders, sign the first Obamacare repeal that hits his desk, and that's it. He doesn't have the political capital to get anything done... even though I love his tax plan. He may be able to shut down spending, but he will not be well liked while doing it.

 

If Clinton or Sanders are elected, nothing changes. The Republicans hold the Congress, and it will be like Obama never left.

Trump is the only one that has the sack, and will, to change things.

 

If Cruz is elected... he'll cancel all of Obama's executive orders, sign the first Obamacare repeal that hits his desk, and that's it. He doesn't have the political capital to get anything done... even though I love his tax plan. He may be able to shut down spending, but he will not be well liked while doing it.

 

If Clinton or Sanders are elected, nothing changes. The Republicans hold the Congress, and it will be like Obama never left.

If Hillary or Bernie are elected it's just going to get worse. Same with Trump too. He has no idea what he is doing and there's no way they would ever let him pass laws. Look how much they're trying to stop him now. Cruz is just another establishment candidate too. He's George W. Bush's cousin. He was an advisor for Bush during his presidency. He's a pretend constitutionalist. The only option I see at all is voting Libertarian or voting for Jill Stein in the Green Party.

 

Question, if they allowed a Libertarian candidate on the debate stage would you then consider voting for them since they'd be receiving airtime and getting noticed? It befuddles me when people say a 3rd party vote is a waste. >_< The only vote wasted is the one that isn't cast.

Answer: If Libertarians had a debate... they would be on the stage. A Libertarian cannot participate in a Republican or Democrat debate. If they garner enough support, like maybe 10% in national polling, they would be there for the Presidential debates when they can show they can compete. A Socialist cannot be on the stage for a Democrat debate... Bernie had to run as a Democrat. Ron Paul was a Libertarian, he ran as a Republican, and still didn't win.

 

Even if people wanted Donald Trump to pass laws, he can't do that. No President can pass laws... only Congress can do that. A President can only execute bills into law, or veto. The biggest mistake made by everyone in this vicious election season, was saying that Trump doesn't know what he's doing. Not trying to sound like Rubio, but he knows exactly what he is doing.

 

Ted Cruz is not establishment. He's spent his entire time in the Senate either fighting the establishment, or calling them liars on the Senate floor. The establishment may be helping him right now, because he's the only one that can take delegates from Trump, but they only want the chance at the convention to nominate their own. All Republicans supported George W... and it was expected.

 

I would never vote for a tree hugging, global warming alarmist... the Green Party are a bunch of lunatics.

Answer: If Libertarians had a debate... they would be on the stage. A Libertarian cannot participate in a Republican or Democrat debate. If they garner enough support, like maybe 10% in national polling, they would be there for the Presidential debates when they can show they can compete. A Socialist cannot be on the stage for a Democrat debate... Bernie had to run as a Democrat. Ron Paul was a Libertarian, he ran as a Republican, and still didn't win.

 

Even if people wanted Donald Trump to pass laws, he can't do that. No President can pass laws... only Congress can do that. A President can only execute bills into law, or veto. The biggest mistake made by everyone in this vicious election season, was saying that Trump doesn't know what he's doing. Not trying to sound like Rubio, but he knows exactly what he is doing.

 

Ted Cruz is not establishment. He's spent his entire time in the Senate either fighting the establishment, or calling them liars on the Senate floor. The establishment may be helping him right now, because he's the only one that can take delegates from Trump, but they only want the chance at the convention to nominate their own. All Republicans supported George W... and it was expected.

 

I would never vote for a tree hugging, global warming alarmist... the Green Party are a bunch of lunatics.

I'm not referring to Primary Debates. Libertarians have had their primary debates on TV for the first time ever this year. I'm talking about the big election debate where they need 15% i believe to be invited to it. Ted Cruz is the same thing he hates. Like I said just look at his record. He's not the constitutionalist he claims to be.

 

I never said the President passes laws either. I was saying with a split house and senate the odds of any of these candidates accomplishing anything while in office are very slim. Either way the show goes on.

Trump is the only one that has the sack, and will, to change things.

 

If Cruz is elected... he'll cancel all of Obama's executive orders, sign the first Obamacare repeal that hits his desk, and that's it. He doesn't have the political capital to get anything done... even though I love his tax plan. He may be able to shut down spending, but he will not be well liked while doing it.

 

If Clinton or Sanders are elected, nothing changes. The Republicans hold the Congress, and it will be like Obama never left.

 

 

It's very possible the dems take the senate back this election, but prob not the house.  The really important thing this election though is going to be the Supreme Court nominations.  The next pres is prob going to be able to nominate replacements for 1-2 more spots in addition to the opening already there and make a liberal/conservative majority for an entire generation.  That's going to change more with the US than any laws/policies a single president could pass.

Edited April 17, 201610 yr by Eva999

 

 

It's very possible the dems take the senate back this election, but prob not the house.  The really important thing this election though is going to be the Supreme Court nominations.  The next pres is prob going to be able to nominate replacements for 1-2 more spots in addition to the opening already there and make a liberal/conservative majority for an entire generation.  That's going to change more with the US than any laws/policies a single president could pass.

You are so correct. Good to know I'm not the only one thinking about this. It would be wonderful to have a Supreme Court that just follows the Constitution and sets aside political bias... but that would be another planet, in another galaxy.

 

It's very possible the dems take the senate back this election, but prob not the house.  The really important thing this election though is going to be the Supreme Court nominations.  The next pres is prob going to be able to nominate replacements for 1-2 more spots in addition to the opening already there and make a liberal/conservative majority for an entire generation.  That's going to change more with the US than any laws/policies a single president could pass.

You are so correct. Good to know I'm not the only one thinking about this. It would be wonderful to have a Supreme Court that just follows the Constitution and sets aside political bias... but that would be another planet, in another galaxy.

 

I second that. They really need to follow the constitution and just leave people alone. We need major criminal justice reform. The problem will persist as long as it remains a big cash scheme. This kind of conflicts with my usually Libertarian stance, but privatized prisons disgust me.

I went and voted in yesterday's NY primary. Trump and Hilary got big wins, which was rather easy to predict given it is both their home state. Little disheartening that out of a line of about 20 people waiting at the Democrat table, I was the only one at the Republican table.

 

Here is an interesting fact, the majority of NY is actually not Democrat. During our 2014 Governor election a Democrat won because NY uses Popular Vote, and not the Electoral System. There are 62 counties in NY, and Democrats only managed to win 16! The Republicans won 46 out of 62 and still lost the election. So a large part of NY's population, controls almost everything in such a tiny part of the State. It absolutely disgusts me because I hate seeing NYC politics attempting to run the rest of the state. After the 2014 election there was a lot of talk among conservatives wanting to split the state in two, or assign NYC a status similar to how the District of Columbia is set up. But the likelihood of that ever happening is unfortunately almost zero.

 

Here is a picture of the 2014 NY Governor Election. Red counties voted Republican, blue counties voted Democrat.

http://marcellusdrilling.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/NY-State-2014-Governor-Race-County-Wins.jpg

Good Morning DM... yes, this is the same story wherever you go. Democrats are heavily concentrated in big cities, and Republicans hold all the rural areas. It takes a lot of rural area to match the population of a big city. I believe the only cure is to just cut them off.

 

That being said, Donald Trump had a really big night. The stop Trump crowd have lost their minds, and they don't know what they're doing anymore. I will just watch and shake my head, while they play this out. These same people that refuse to back Donald Trump, will do the same thing to Ted Cruz once they have the chance. Next Tuesday, April 26, will be another big Trump day... and he'll take another 5 states by large margins. Turning on your own electorate is about the stupidest thing they can do, and we shall see just how stupid a party can become. Hillary loves that all our guns are on ourselves... and not her.

 

Current Delegate Count (CNN)

 

Donald Trump - 847

 

Needed to win - 1,237

 

No one but Trump can make the number, so no one else matters.

If your party doesn't like its candidate, perhaps you should get a third party? properly demarcate the differences, only makes it more obvious of who wants what and how many those are

 

So is this Trumps first +50%?

The next Super Tuesday will have 170+ GOP delegates up for grabs. Will be exciting.

 

Not sure though but now Cruz can't get 1237 even if he wins every state from now.

If your party doesn't like its candidate, perhaps you should get a third party? properly demarcate the differences, only makes it more obvious of who wants what and how many those are

 

So is this Trumps first +50%?

An effective third party would do one of two things.

 

1) It would make it impossible for anyone to win a majority, therefore pretty much impossible to reach 270 electoral votes to win President... so we would have to have a run-off with two candidates anyway.

 

2) Effectively split one party into two, making it impossible to ever win an election.

 

This is a bad idea overall. It's not that our party doesn't like the candidate... everyone just has a preference, and dig their feet into the ground. In the end... they will support their candidate as much as they can, just to keep Hillary Clinton from it. I hope it's enough.